Tag Archives: Diebold

Election hacking

A 2016 HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy, discusses voting irregularities and the ease of hacking the results of electronic voting systems:

It introduces Bev Harris, a 52 year old grandmother who stumbled upon evidence of vote tampering. She went on to create Black Box Voting, a nonpartisan investigative reporting and public education organization for elections.

Apparently these Diebold machines employ a Windows NT operating system.  Here’s an excerpt from a Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine: “Simply put, many computer scientists doubt that paperless DREs [Direct Recording Electronic voting systems] can be made reliable and secure, and they expect that any failures of such systems would likely go undetected.”

Despite these problems, we believe that it is possible, at reasonable cost, to build a DRE-based voting system—including hardware, software, and election procedures—that is suitably secure and reliable. Such a system would require not only a voting machine designed with more care and attention to security, but also an array of safeguards, including a well-designed voter-verifiable paper audit trail system, random audits and forensic analyses, and truly independent security review.

In this video, Clint Curtis, a Florida-based computer programmer testifies to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee about vote tampering in software:

It’s much easier to audit a paper ballot system. Computers are faster than paper, but, to at least some degree, vulnerable to hacking.

Advertisements

Major flaws revealed in Diebold’s voting software

photo: Joebeone)
Diebold Elections System AccuVote-TSx DRE voting machine with a VVPAT attachment (at right)
 
I’m shocked — shocked! — to learn that more flaws have been discovered in Diebold’s (now renamed Premier Election Systems, since Diebold’s reputation has been tarnished) voting software. California’s Secretary of State, in a new report, states that it’s possible to delete batches of votes without recording the deletions in the Diebold machine’s audit log and that it’s possible to easily delete the audit log itself. Yikes! Read the story.
 
I vote for decertifying these voting machines and their software.
 
Which government employees certified these clunkers? How about decertifying them?
 
The simpler, the better
Although I’m pretty familiar with computers, I don’t trust them when used for voting. (I also don’t trust them when built into clothes washing machines and driers: I much prefer simple mechanical rotary timers because they’re more reliable and cheap and easy to repair.)
 
Visit my website: russbellew.com